Sinan Ulgen, chairman of the Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies, a think tank in Istanbul, said the development was not unexpected.
"Erdogan made his choice long ago, placing Turkey in the vanguard of countries calling for regime change in Syria," Mr Ulgen said yesterday. "That
choice comes with a number of risks."

And how close I am to the truth. Turkey is hiding the evidence. They have already 404 this site linking the two above as partners. www.edam.org.tr...

Besides the fact that there is no proof that assad used chemical weapons my biggest objection to any type of strike is that it will be ineffectual
just as that general stated. An ineffectual strike in many ways would be worse than doing nothing.

An ineffectual attack would prove that you can use WMD and survive U.S. retaliation and continue to fight on.
An ineffectual attack could actually increase the chance that WMD might be used. if assad is "punished" for a crime he didn`t commit he might decide
to earn the "punishment" by actually committing the crime since he knows that his military can survive the retaliation.

Hagel said "i have no idea what you`re talking about but it`s probably classified"

That`s classic!
Translation: I don`t have to know what you`re talking about I just know that if it makes us look like liars then it`s probably classified.

JFK and his administration knew what they were doing unlike his predecessors.They are slaves to the MIC and bankers.Now,we hear that the handlers are
considering backing off.(What's this? The War President backing off!!?

That brings me elouina to the report of the "chemical weapons" that Turkey "don't have" but have used many times and not necessarily "Sarin"
crossing the borders with Syria while the Turkey borders has been "used" for the support of supplies and "others" mostly weapons to the "Rebels"
in Syria thanks to the benefactors behind the funding the US, Quatar and Saudi.

Well lets thank history the internet search and putting one and one together.

We do better job here in ATS than all the talking heads experts and
spying CIA and whatever on pay roll from the tax payers and the warmongers profiteers coffers.

May I suggest that the reason you find it so surprising - and I do so with respect - is that you assume all liberals and Democratic congressmen kiss
his bum? Well, it's not true, therefore it really should not be surprising. Many of a conservative or libertarian bent of mind have developed this
stereotypical view that all liberals stand lock-armed with anything and everything President Obama says or does, but this is no more true than to
claim the opposite. (that conservatives always follow a Republican President).

I consider myself a left-leaning independent rather than a strict liberal, but most of my friends are liberal and none of us support this push for
war. We are stunned that President Obama is pushing so hard, and I am also stunned that more people haven't noticed that it was only a few days BEFORE
21st August when President Obama threatened military action if Syria ever decided to use chemical weapons. Why did he say that only days in advance?
Did they know that preparations were being made? How do we know that the CIA or other civilian or even military intelligence agencies (or rogue
agencies) are not responsible for all of this, the planning, the attack, and the push for war?

In recent months President Obama has been going against the principles held by most progressives and liberals, and now that he is pushing for another
war the doodie has really hit the fan now. Most Americans are savvy to the fact that the intelligence has been (or "likely has been") manipulated and
doctored.

I am Of none denomination, I have voted for both parties before the last decade, for Bush in 2000, for Kerry in 2004 and for Obama in 2006, I decided
to abstain from voting last elections for obvious reasons.

So I do not consider anybody to be neither liberal or conservative actions speaks tons of what the political whores in Washington actually goes with
whatever pimp in corporate interest fills their pockets, but what I was surprised is the lack of support of Obama own political party this days.

Ok this is just too darn weird. Guess what came in my email just moments ago? An email from Grayson! Normally I wouldn't quote an entire email, but
how else can you read this? Plus, I am certain he wants everyone possible to see this. Oh and I am not on his email list. Spooky!

On Syria, "Trust, but Verify"
This op-ed written by Congressman Alan Grayson appeared in The New York Times today. Read it, share it with your friends and family, and join more
than 75,000 others who oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria by signing on at DontAttackSyria.com.

WASHINGTON - THE documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page
classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I'm not allowed to tell you what's in the classified summary, but
you can draw your own conclusion.

On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their
answer was "no."

The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites
intercepted telephone calls, "social media" postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached - not even clips from YouTube.
(As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn't possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)

Over the last week the administration has run a full-court press on Capitol Hill, lobbying members from both parties in both houses to vote in support
of its plan to attack Syria. And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately
depicted the underlying evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the American public.

In fact, even gaining access to just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles.

We have to descend into the bowels of the Capitol Visitors Center, to a room four levels underground. Per the instructions of the chairman of the
House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed.

Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we
allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided.

And this is just the classified summary. It is my understanding that the House Intelligence Committee made a formal request for the underlying
intelligence reports several days ago. I haven't heard an answer yet. And frankly, I don't expect one.

Compare this lack of transparency with the administration's treatment of the Benghazi attack. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, to her
credit, made every single relevant classified e-mail, cable and intelligence report available to every member of Congress. (I know this, because I
read them all.) Secretary Clinton had nothing to hide.

Her successor, John Kerry, has said repeatedly that this administration isn't trying to manipulate the intelligence reports the way that the Bush
administration did to rationalize its invasion of Iraq.

But by refusing to disclose the underlying data even to members of Congress, the administration is making it impossible for anyone to judge,
independently, whether that statement is correct. Perhaps the edict of an earlier administration applies: "Trust, but verify."

The danger of the administration's approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in The Daily Caller, which claimed that the Obama
administration had selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes in Syria, with one report "doctored so that it leads a reader to just the
opposite conclusion reached by the original report."

The allegedly doctored report attributes the attack to the Syrian general staff. But according to The Daily Caller, "it was clear that 'the Syrian
general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their
instructions.'"

I don't know who is right, the administration or The Daily Caller. But for me to make the correct decision on whether to allow an attack, I need to
know. And so does the American public.

We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from
learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money
and blood. The "security state" is drowning in its own phlegm.

My position is simple: if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I'm
not the only one who feels that way.

Alan Grayson, a Democratic representative from Florida, is a member of the House committee.

wow, so basically congress hasn`t been shown any evidence and they have been banned from debating or discussing the issue of evidence,even with other
members of congress.
isn`t part of congresses job to debate and discuss before voting on any given issue?
They`ve been told they are not allowed to to their job,why would the obama administration ban congress from doing the job that the people elected them
to do?

And we should actually be past talking impeachment at this point because its all a sham. They shouldn't be allowed to debate or vote squat. House
cleaning needs to happen and shouldn't wait until election year. Get rid of em, all of em.

Is nothing new, Bush did the same to be able to get into Iraq, what it surprises me the most is how Bush got away with it, but Obama own people are
turning against him.

I can debate as why but it will just be a conspiracy until proved different.

But this something that we have debate here, Obama is doing what he is told to do, he is told to push for war by the warmongers profiteers and that is
what he is doing, just following the masters.

Still his own people turning around on him is something very interesting and surprising.

edit on 6-9-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

It isn't really surprising at all, it is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans stand together and follow the party line
regardless of that line. Democrats on the other hand never agree on anything are somewhat more independant in their actions. They both serve the
same masters but democrates aren't quite as happy to do so.

I have just attended a classified Congressional briefing on Syria that quite frankly raised more questions than it answered. I found the evidence
presented by Administration officials to be circumstantial.

Congressman Michael Burgess said:

Yes, I saw the classified documents. They were pretty thin.

Yahoo News reports:

New Hampshire Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, for instance, left Thursday’s classified hearing and said she was opposed to the effort “now so
more than ever.”

“I think there’s a long way to go for the president to make the case,” she said after the briefing. “It does seem there is a high degree of
concern and leaning no.”

Senator Joe Manchin announced he was voting “no” for a Syria strike right after hearing a classified intelligence brieifng.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.